Proposed NEXT store Public Inquiry

[Planner1]

And the local policy is the belief that the store should be by St Marys Gate!

 

This is not law, it was a decision made by Sheffield councillors.

 

We are the laughing stock of the UK. The store has to be by Meadowhall for many reasons, and this entire farce has kept 150 people on the dole.

 

There is land out by Meadowhall, disused. It can be built on. There is no law against that. The decision is whether the council allow it.

 

Planning law dictates the way in which local planning policies are formulated, amended and used. SCC's local plan has been developed in accordance with planning law and has been examined in public by a planning inspector, who has pronounced it sound.

 

Yes, the area zoned in the local plan for bulky goods retail is the area around the current Staples store. The government planning inspector found this and all the other policies to be sound in legal terms.

 

Do you seriously believe that every job created will be filled by someone who is currently workless? I cannot believe this will be the case. The number of permanent jobs mentioned by Next was 125 not 150.

 

By law, the Council has to identify a supply of land for development which is sufficient to satisfy developers needs for several years. Not every scrap of land in the city must be developed immediately, that is an unrealistic expectation.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:23 ----------

 

The law doesn't need changing, the decision process was based on a lie, not on law. Hence it's been castigated by all the councils advisors and hopefully council heads will roll as a result.

 

The decision is lawful if the staples/mothercare site was suitable, sequencial national policy framework and all that, but it was not (by the way has anyone told the people that work there the council keep trying to shut them down as they both seem to be trading?).

 

You are defending a decision based on a barefaced lie by councilors who have incompetently got in hock to a developer with no intention of developing anything and are desperate to do anything to avoid being held to account for their incompetence and will happily sacrifice as many jobs for the people of Sheffield as it takes to pathetically hang onto their own.

 

They are a disgrace and anyone who continues to slavishly defend these traitors to the city is a disgrace and should hang their head in shame.

I do not believe I am defending anything. I am explaining how things work.

 

You may not like the way things work, but that does not make them inherently

wrong or in any way underhand or illegal.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:30 ----------

 

And the same people will soon approve a 15000 seater rugby stadium for a club that gets no more than 1000 attending their games.

 

It doesn't get any better.

 

So now you are criticising the Council for potentially allowing a business to build what it wants, where it wants, whilst you have previously criticised them for not doing so. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

[sid63]

(Do you seriously believe that every job created will be filled by someone who is currently workless? I cannot believe this will be the case. The number of permanent jobs mentioned by Next was 125 not 150).

 

What a comment this is, if you are a Council employee and seriously think that Sheffield does'nt need 125 job vacancies then god help the working person

 

If every job at NEXT was filled by people all ready in work that would still create 125 jobs elsewhere

Edited May 28, 2013 by sid63

[BoroB]

So, another one who is not exactly criticising from an informed position.

 

The council report to councillors rejected the plans on three main points:

 

1 - The size of Meadowhall is to be restricted to 'around its present size'

 

2 - There is a sequentially preferable site that is suitable, namely Staples/Mothercare.

 

3 - The impact on investor confidence on the Moor /city centre redevelopment which is being led by Scottish Widows.

 

Even when rejecting the plans the common consensus from experts was that the case was weak. Funnily enough the report does not appear to mention that the councils case officer and retail policy officer thought that the case for rejecting the plans was weak. I bet that revelation was a shock to the councillors last week.

 

Given that Scottish Widows have withdrawn their objection, which the council report gave the most emphasis to, it appears that the third reason for rejecting the plans can be removed.

 

Scottish Widows own the Staples/Mothercare site and thus having withdrawn their objection the second reason for rejecting the plans also appear to be dismissed. The fact that Staples and Mothercare continue to occupy the site referred to would also appear to discount this property being available.

 

So out of what the council agrees is a weak case we are left with the first reason for rejecting the plans, namely Meadowhall being restricted to 'around its present size'. The council did not define what 'around its present size' actually meant.

 

Firstly, the planned Next store is not part of Meadowhall, it is around half a mile away.

 

Secondly Meadowhall has retail floor space of 139,355 sq metres, the Next store proposes 5,678 sq metres. Meadowhall would stop at exactly its present size if Next were granted approval.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 22:50 ----------

 

So presumably you are basing your views on reports in the Star? Which is of course renowned for its comprehensive and unbiased reporting.

 

So whch part of the Stars reporting of the case was incorrect last week?

[Planner1]

(Do you seriously believe that every job created will be filled by someone who is currently workless? I cannot believe this will be the case. The number of permanent jobs mentioned by Next was 125 not 150).

 

What a comment this is, if you are a Council employee and seriously think that Sheffield does'nt need 125 job vacancies then god help the working person

 

If every job at NEXT was filled by people all ready in work that would still create 125 jobs elsewhere

Where did I say that new 125 jobs would not be a good thing?

 

Anyone who thinks all the jobs would be filled by people from Sheffield is not being realistic. Meadowhall is within easy travel distance of a lot of other places. It is highly unlikely in my view that all the vacancies would be filled by people who are currently unemployed. Some would probably come from another job.

 

When people leave a job, sometimes the vacancy is not filed ( it happens a lot in the public sector) Which means that the number of people off the dole may be less than the total number of jobs.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 23:07 ----------

 

The council report to councillors rejected the plans on three main points:

 

1 - The size of Meadowhall is to be restricted to 'around its present size'

 

2 - There is a sequentially preferable site that is suitable, namely Staples/Mothercare.

 

3 - The impact on investor confidence on the Moor /city centre redevelopment which is being led by Scottish Widows.

 

Even when rejecting the plans the common consensus from experts was that the case was weak. Funnily enough the report does not appear to mention that the councils case officer and retail policy officer thought that the case for rejecting the plans was weak. I bet that revelation was a shock to the councillors last week.

 

Given that Scottish Widows have withdrawn their objection, which the council report gave the most emphasis to, it appears that the third reason for rejecting the plans can be removed.

 

Scottish Widows own the Staples/Mothercare site and thus having withdrawn their objection the second reason for rejecting the plans also appear to be dismissed. The fact that Staples and Mothercare continue to occupy the site referred to would also appear to discount this property being available.

 

So out of what the council agrees is a weak case we are left with the first reason for rejecting the plans, namely Meadowhall being restricted to 'around its present size'. The council did not define what 'around its present size' actually meant.

 

Firstly, the planned Next store is not part of Meadowhall, it is around half a mile away.

 

Secondly Meadowhall has retail floor space of 139,355 sq metres, the Next store proposes 5,678 sq metres. Meadowhall would stop at exactly its present size if Next were granted approval.

I believe that if you look for it, there has been a recent clarification in the local plan on the size of allowable expansion of retail in Meadowhall area. The Council are clearly classing the proposed Next development as being part of Meadowhall for the purposes of the local plan.

 

As I understand it, the Next proposal involves the overspill car park site on your left as you are exiting the roundabout off Attercliffe Common towards the main Meadowhall entrance. That would be well within half a mile of Meadowhall.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 23:15 ----------

 

So whch part of the Stars reporting of the case was incorrect last week?

 

Did they print a full transcript of everything which was said? ( I don't know as I am not currently in the country )

 

If not, as I wasn't there and neither by the sound of it were you or anyone else posting on here, we can't be sure can we?

[BoroB]

Where did I say that new 125 jobs would not be a good thing?

 

Anyone who thinks all the jobs would be filled by people from Sheffield is not being realistic. Meadowhall is within easy travel distance of a lot of other places. It is highly unlikely in my view that all the vacancies would be filled by people who are currently unemployed. Some would probably come from another job.

 

When people leave a job, sometimes the vacancy is not filed ( it happens a lot in the public sector) Which means that the number of people off the dole may be less than the total number of jobs.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2013 at 23:07 ----------

 

I believe that if you look for it, there has been a recent clarification in the local plan on the size of allowable expansion of retail in Meadowhall area. The Council are clearly classing the proposed Next development as being part of Meadowhall for the purposes of the local plan.

 

As I understand it, the Next proposal involves the overspill car park site on your left as you are exiting the roundabout off Attercliffe Common towards the main Meadowhall entrance. That would be well within half a mile of Meadowhall.

 

When did the recent clarification take place, before or after Next was decided upon?

 

The retail space related to Next is not part of Meadowhall. The council report states about Next states:

 

'It does not accord with key polices in our development plan which seek to restrict Meadowhall to around its present size'It does not refer to the Meadowhall area, only Meadowhall itself.

 

So you accept that the other two of the councils weak reasons for rejecting the plans are now irrelevant?

[Planner1]

When did the recent clarification take place, before or after Next was decided upon?

 

The retail space related to Next is not part of Meadowhall. The council report states about Next states:

 

'It does not accord with key polices in our development plan which seek to restrict Meadowhall to around its present size'It does not refer to the Meadowhall area, only Meadowhall itself.

 

So you accept that the other two of the councils weak reasons for rejecting the plans are now irrelevant?

I believe it was clarified before the Next issue came about. Try the City Policies and Sites document. I believe it was in there that I saw it.

 

Whether or not the site is deemed to be part of Meadowhall, it is not zoned for that type of retail.

 

I do not have any view on the reasons given as I do not have enough information to gain an informed opinion.

[BoroB]

Did they print a full transcript of everything which was said? ( I don't know as I am not currently in the country )

 

If not, as I wasn't there and neither by the sound of it were you or anyone else posting on here, we can't be sure can we?

 

No we can't be sure but as the council do not appear to have objected to the story then I take it we can assume that the Star has been comprehensive and unbiased in its reporting of the story?

 

The same facts from the case have also been reported by the BBC website and local news stations.

[Planner1]

No we can't be sure but as the council do not appear to have objected to the story then I take it we can assume that the Star has been comprehensive and unbiased in its reporting of the story?

 

The same facts from the case have also been reported by the BBC website and local news stations.

The Council don't actually object to every omission and inaccuracy.

 

I have seen no mention on here of what the council said at the hearing. I have not spoken to anyone who was there, or seen the Stars coverage, so it is difficult to form a view. Previous experience tells us the Star tend to be critical of the Council.

[BoroB]

The Council don't actually object to every omission and inaccuracy.

 

I have seen no mention on here of what the council said at the hearing. I have not spoken to anyone who was there, or seen the Stars coverage, so it is difficult to form a view. Previous experience tells us the Star tend to be critical of the Council.

 

Links to the Star articles were posted on this site last week, these articles reported what was said by both Nexts and the councils barristers.

 

I think there is alot of criticism of the council for turning away Next's millions and jobs. In my opinion the Star has cottoned onto the mood of the people over this issue, especially seen as the council admitted at the appeal that its argument is weak.

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 06:43 ----------

 

I believe it was clarified before the Next issue came about. Try the City Policies and Sites document. I believe it was in there that I saw it.

 

Whether or not the site is deemed to be part of Meadowhall, it is not zoned for that type of retail.

 

I do not have any view on the reasons given as I do not have enough information to gain an informed opinion.

 

And therein lies alot of problems with the city development at the moment.

 

Land is zoned by the council for certain types of development, be it industrial, retail or housing etc.

 

Unfortunately the only people wanting to develop the wasteland just off the M1 are Next and Ikea. This may not be zoned for this type of developments but it is the only investment available. Not ideal but all that is on offer.

 

Do the council be flexible, embrace and work with the developers to deliver investment and jobs or dismiss with weak arguments in the case of Next? The council and some local MP's were making noises against Ikea before an application had even been submitted. So much for judging cases on their merits.

 

I think that the Master Cutler, quoted in yesterdays Star, sums up the feelings of alot of Sheffielders who despair of the council at times:

 

Sheffield’s top industrialist has given his backing to plans for an Ikea store in the city.

 

 

Master Cutler Neil MacDonald said he believes that refusal of planning permission for the scheme could damage the city’s reputation.

 

Some members of Sheffield Council have ‘serious concerns’ about extra traffic and pollution, and loss of an industrial site.

 

Ikea wants to build the store on land formerly occupied by Tinsley Wire and Betafence, off Sheffield Road, Carbrook.

 

A planning application was submitted last week.

 

Mr MacDonald said: “I think we should let Ikea in. The store would be good news in terms of jobs and loss of the site for industry would not be a problem because we have a lot of vacant land.

 

“If we turn Ikea down again after previously recommending refusal some years ago which led to the company withdrawing a scheme, what message would we give out about whether Sheffield can attract big names?

 

“There are issues with Ikea around transport in particular but these can be dealt with.”

 

Mr MacDonald’s comments follow support for Ikea from Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s executive director Richard Wright.

 

A public inquiry has been held after Next appealed. A decision will be made in the coming weeks.

 

Ikea’s plans have now been submitted to Sheffield Council. Ikea project manager Ian Nicholson said: “The response to our public consultation has been overwhelmingly positive, with 98 per cent of respondents supportive.

Edited May 29, 2013 by BoroB

[alchemist]

So presumably you are basing your views on reports in the Star? Which is of course renowned for its comprehensive and unbiased reporting.

 

I am assuming that YOU haven't read the report either because if you had you would be quoting any parts that exist that support your argument

 

You managed to make that post without mentioning the PLAN so I thought I had better say it for you

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 07:43 ----------

 

So, another one who is not exactly criticising from an informed position.

 

OK, correct me, show us the proof, I am sure YOU have read it to be able to defend it so much

 

So are you catagorically saying that caulfield did NOT go against or ignore the advice from a number of well paid advisors who are seemingly now no longer needed?

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 07:49 ----------

 

 

The head of planning can only make a recommendation in cases like this, it's the Councillors who take the final decision.

 

So if the Next appeal succeeds will Caulfield be resigning as it will show that he is incompetent in that he ignored the advise given by a number of well paid advisors.

 

Or, WAS it incompetence, could there be another reason why he thought he knew best, was he getting "advice" from parties unknown?

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 07:53 ----------

 

So now you are criticising the Council for potentially allowing a business to build what it wants, where it wants, whilst you have previously criticised them for not doing so. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

It DOES smack of double standards and inconsistency

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 07:56 ----------

 

(Do you seriously believe that every job created will be filled by someone who is currently workless? I cannot believe this will be the case. The number of permanent jobs mentioned by Next was 125 not 150).

 

What a comment this is, if you are a Council employee and seriously think that Sheffield does'nt need 125 job vacancies then god help the working person

 

If every job at NEXT was filled by people all ready in work that would still create 125 jobs elsewhere

 

No, the jobs in Next would have to be filled by the ones thrown out of work by the council closing staples/mothercare

 

The council do NOT want the potential for extra jobs in the region if it contradicts the Holy PLAN

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 08:01 ----------

 

Meadowhall is within easy travel distance of a lot of other places.

 

Which is WHY Next and Ikea want to build THERE instead of the staples/mothercare site!!!!

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 08:11 ----------

 

I think the problem is that Planner is trying to get across is the the Holy PLAN is so badly written and fixed in the past that it cannot conceive that things might change during its lifetime. Planner is trying to point out that the Holy PLAN says that nothing can be built at Meadowhall because that land is designated for a future steelworks and if someone is stupid enough to put something useful there, like, say a shop, that produces jobs and money NOW it will stop the steelworks being built in the future.

 

Actually, somewhat like Sevenstones, get rid of jobs now (or should I say back in 2003) for jobs that may never appear decades in the future.